Either one will basically be a guaranteed vote for all the worst Republican policies, so I don't think it's going to make too much actual difference.

What it does establish is that Trump isn't necessarily calling the shots in these primaries, which frees other Republican politicians up to criticize him with less fear that his influence will sink them in their next primary.

Hmm. I'm not sure it means that entirely. It showed that Trump can't get his base to vote against someone who greatly appeals to them.

He supported Strange to reward his reliable votes, but it was never credible or enthusiastic support.

What this means, in my opinion is that Trump will not likely support candidates who are being challenged from the right. He may even back some of those challengers, which will likely be helpful to them, because he would be selling something his base wants to buy. I would think now the loyalty equation is more about being seen as enough of an asset to prevent Trump from backing a challenger. There can certainly be political value for some GOP members of Congress to break with Trump on some issues, but they will need to weigh the costs and benefits, including potentially not only not having Trump support, but possibly having to fight Trump opposition in a primary.

Oh, and no, they are not basically the same just because they would likely vote the same. Who gets to be one of only 100 senators in the US matters. Among other things, Senators have enormous power beyond just their votes.

Don't forget that any equation about what this means has to take in account the fact that Bannon was opposing Trump on this. Hard to tell exactly how each one appeals to the voters, especially as Trump's support was pretty lukewarm as erwins pointed out. But if Trump and Bannon both supported the same candidate, that candidate would certainly have a lot better chance. If I were a GOP candidate*, I would not count on that happening again and would have to content with Trump's opposition without the potential counterbalance of Bannon's support.

True. Trump is not likely to be opposing Bannon, Gorka, and Palin again. And with his tepid support so obviously insincere, I don't think it tells us much about what effect actual Trump support would have.

But it does suggest that Trump needs to actually want to support you, because his fake support is worthless.